CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Randomized controlled trial of interpersonal psychotherapy versus enhanced treatment as usual for women with co-occurring depression and pelvic pain

Open access
Poleshuck, Ellen L., Gamble, Stephanie A., Bellenger, Kelly, Lu, Naiji, Tu, Xin, Sörensen, Silvia, Giles, Donna E., Talbot, Nancy L.·2014·Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.07.016PMC PMC6983302
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Our study assessed the effectiveness of Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) tailored for biomedical patients with depression and pain. IPT was compared to enhanced treatment as usual (E-TAU) among women with co-occurring depression and chronic pain presenting for care at a women's health or family medicine practice. We hypothesized that women presenting to urban medical practices with depression and chronic pain would benefit from IPT tailored to address their needs to a greater degree than from E-TAU.Methods We conducted a randomized controlled psychotherapy trial of 61 women from 2 urban medical practices who met criteria for major depressive disorder and chronic pelvic pain. Participants were assigned to receive either 8 sessions of IPT or a facilitated psychotherapy referral to a community mental health center, and assessed for depression, social interactions, and pain at 0-, 12-, 24-, and 36-weeks, with score on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression as the primary outcome. Both intent-to-treat (ITT) and causal modeling analyses correcting for treatment attendance were conducted.Results ITT analyses were not significant. In causal modeling analyses, participants assigned to IPT showed significantly more improvement for depression and social interactions, but not for pain.Conclusion IPT may be a viable option as part of a comprehensive treatment program for women in medical practices with depression and chronic pain.Clinical trials registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00895999.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.07.016

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Poleshuck et al. (2014), at post-treatment, compared to E-TAU, the IPT-P group had significantly lower occurrence of MDD (estimate = .19, SE = .10, P < .05).

    “- occurrence of MDD (estimate = .19, SE = .10, P < .05)”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Poleshuck et al, (2014)

    The Results > Outcomes section says the causal models found significantly lower post-treatment occurrence of major depressive disorder in the IPT-P group than in E-TAU. It also says the intent-to-treat analysis found no significant effect, so the result depends on the causal-model analysis. The passages available from our copy do not verify the stated estimate of .19 or SE of .10. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Poleshuck et al. (2014), there was no significant between-group difference on pain interference at post-treatment (estimate = .33, SE = -.20, P > .05).

    “- pain interference (estimate = .33, SE = -.20, P > .05) at post-treatment”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Poleshuck et al, (2014)

    The Results > Outcomes section says the causal models found no significant between-group difference for pain at post-treatment, and the Methods section identifies pain interference as a measured outcome. The passages do not report the claimed estimate or standard error; in particular, they do not substantiate the negative value given for SE. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Poleshuck et al. (2014), at post-treatment, compared to E-TAU, the IPT-P group had significantly lower adjusted depression scores (estimate = 2.13, SE = 1.05 P < .05 for HRSD; estimate = 3.89, SE = 2.19, P < .05 for BDI).

    “At post-treatment, compared to E-TAU, the IPT-P group had significantly lower - adjusted depression scores (estimate = 2.13, SE = 1.05 P < .05 for HRSD; estimate = 3.89, SE = 2.19, P < .05 for BDI)”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as Poleshuck et al, (2014)

    The Results > Outcomes section reports that, in causal-model analyses, IPT-P participants had significantly lower adjusted depression scores than E-TAU participants at post-treatment. Our copy does not provide the quoted HRSD and BDI estimates, standard errors, or individual P values, so those numbers cannot be verified. The same section notes that the intent-to-treat analyses found no significant intervention effects. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Additional improvements in illness impact, social interactions, as well as interpersonal sensitivity and ambivalence were found.

    “Other tertiary outcomes were examined in 8 out of 11 trials. Improved QoL was reported in 5 out of 6 trials. 21,22,25,32,42 Additional improvements in illness impact, social interactions, 42 as well as interpersonal sensitivity and ambivalence 31 were found, but these outcomes were only reported in 1 RCT.”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

  • Only one trial evaluated IPT and included a sample of less than 100.

    “with only one trial evaluating an IPT 31 and including a sample of less than 100”

    From The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Chronic Pain Symptoms Among People With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [41]First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW, and Benjamin L (1996). User’s Guide for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID II). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Poleshuck, E. L., Gamble, S. A., Bellenger, K., Lu, N., Tu, X., Sörensen, S., Giles, D. E., & Talbot, N. L.
Affiliations
University of Rochester Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Poleshuck, Ellen L.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
77
Issue
4
Pages
264-272
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.07.016
PMC
PMC6983302
OpenAlex
W2034588706
Cited by
16
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (K23-MH079347)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
interpersonal psychotherapy, depression, chronic pelvic pain, women's health, usual care, social interaction, pain intensity, primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Urban Population, Comorbidity, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Pain, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review